Tag: Casey Research

Demise of the Petrodollar

By Casey Research

Vladimir Putin is stripping America of its superpower status. But he’s not using bombs or tanks to do it. He plans to destroy the one thing that underpins demand for the dollar and Americans’ way of life: the petrodollar system. This was the secret pact Kissinger struck in the vast oil rich deserts of Saudi Arabia. America guaranteed to defend Saudi Arabia and the House of Saud in perpetuity if the Saudis would sell oil in dollars. But many countries resent this system, and their leading spokesman is Putin. There’s a new Colder War going on, and it’s threatening the only thing holding America at the top.

 

Before Putin makes another move, pick up a copy of The Colder War and learn why the stakes have never been higher and why we’ve never been more vulnerable. Because if the petrodollar dies, so does America as a superpower.

 

Putin vs Obama: Who’s Dominating the Colder War?

By Casey Research

Putin is attacking the true source of American power—the petrodollar—and he’s got China, Brazil, India, and South Africa in his corner. They’re aligning themselves to fight the EU, America, and the IMF. And as each month passes, Putin is using Russia’s position at the center of the world’s energy matrix to forge new alliances and deals. How long before the world discovers that Obama and America are hiding behind a curtain with no powers anymore?

 

Before Putin makes another move, read Marin Katusa’s new book, The Colder War. You’ll learn what a post-petrodollar America looks like… and it isn’t pretty. Don’t miss the most important book we’ve ever published: click here to order The Colder War now.

 

Why Putin Has Been Able to Outwit America and Take Over the Global Energy Trade

By Casey Research

Vladimir Putin commands the utmost loyalty from those around him, whereas American politics is now characterized solely by infighting and self-destructiveness. It’s this unity of purpose that explains how Putin and his St. Petersburg boys managed to rise to power from humble beginnings and why they’re winning the fight to control global energy trade. Putin is fiercely committed to restoring Russia’s superpower status using its vast energy resources as an economic weapon. Can American possibly compete?

Before Putin makes another move, pick up a copy of The Colder War and learn how his plans will directly affect you. You might even catch yourself admiring the man, save for the fact that all this is happening at our expense.

 

Blood in the Streets to Create the Opportunity of the Decade

By Laurynas Vegys, Research Analyst

Gold stocks staged spring and summer rallies this year, but haven’t able to sustain the momentum. Many have sold off sharply in recent weeks, along with gold. That makes this a good time to examine the book value of gold equities; are they objectively cheap now, or not?

By way of reminder, a price-to-book-value ratio (P/BV) shows the stock price in relation to the company’s book value, which is the theoretical value of a company’s assets minus liabilities. A stock is considered cheap when it’s trading at a historically low P/BV, and undervalued when it’s trading below book value. From the perspective of an investor, low price-to-book multiples imply opportunity and a margin of safety from potential declines in price.

We analyzed the book values of all publicly traded primary gold producers with a market cap of $1 billion or more. The final list comprised 32 companies. We then charted book values from January 2, 2007 through last Thursday, October 15. Here’s what we found.

At the current 1.20 times book value, gold stocks aren’t as cheap as they were when we ran the numbers in June, 2013, successfully pinpointing the all-time low of 0.91 (the turning point before the period in gray). Of course, that P/BV is hard to beat: it was one of the lowest values ever. And while the stocks not quite as cheap now, the valuation multiple still lingers close to its historical bottom. Remember, we’re talking about senior mining companies here—producers with real assets and cash flow selling for close to their book values.

In short, yes, gold stocks are objectively selling cheaply.

The juniors, of course, have been hit harder. It’s hard to put a meaningful book value on many of these “burning matches” with little more than hopes and geologists’ dreams, but valuations on many are scraping the bottom, making them even better bargains, albeit substantially riskier ones.

What does this mean for us investors?

It’s no surprise to see that every contraction in the ratio was followed by a major rally. In other words, the cure for low prices is low prices:

• The August, 2007 bottom (2.2) and the momentary downtrend that preceded it were quickly erased by a swift price rally leading to a January, 2008 peak (3.8).

• The bull also made a comeback in 2009-2010, fighting its way up out of what seemed at the time to be the deepest hole (1.04) in October, 2008.

Stocks have been on a long slide since the ratio last peaked at 3.24 in October, 2010, with the downturn in 2013 pushing multiples to previously unseen lows.

No one—us included—has a crystal ball, and so it’s impossible to tell if the bottom is behind us. We can, however, gauge with certainty when an asset is cheap—and cash-generating companies selling for little more than book value are extraordinary values for big-picture investors.

Now let’s see how these valuations look against the S&P 500.

Stocks listed in the S&P500 are currently more than twice as expensive as the gold producers. That’s not surprising given how volatile metals prices can be and how unloved mining is—but is it rational? Note that despite the downtrend in the last month, the multiple for the S&P500 remains close to a multiyear high.

In other words, yes, the S&P 500 is expensive.

This contrast points to an obvious opportunity in our sector.

So is now the time to buy gold stocks? Answer: our stocks are good values now, and, if there is a larger correction ahead, they may well become fantastic values, briefly. Either way, value is value, on sale.

As the most successful resource speculators have repeatedly said: you have to be a contrarian in this sector to be successful, buying low and selling high, and that takes courage based on solid convictions. Yes, it’s possible that valuations could fall further. However:

The difference between prices and clear-cut value argue for going long and staying that way until multiples return to lofty levels again—which they’ve done every time, as the historical record shows.

With a long-term time frame in mind, whatever happens in the short term is less of a concern. Building substantial positions at good prices in great companies in advance of what must transpire sooner or later is what successful speculation is all about. This is how Doug Casey, Rick Rule, and others have made their fortunes, and it’s why they’re buying in the market now, seeing market capitulation as one of the prime opportunities of the decade.

That’s worth remembering, especially during a downturn that has even die-hard gold bugs giving up.

Bottom line: “Blood in the streets” isn’t pretty, but it’s a good thing for those with the liquidity and courage to act.

What to buy? That’s what we cover in BIG GOLD. Thanks to our 3-month full money-back guarantee, you have nothing to lose and the potential for gains that only a true contrarian can expect.

 

 

The Broken State and How to Fix It

By Casey Research

The United States of America is not what it used to be. Unsustainable mountains of debt, continuous meddling by the government and Fed to “stimulate the economy,” and the US dollar’s dwindling status as the world’s reserve currency are very real threats to Americans’ standard of living. Here are some opinions from the recently concluded Casey Research Fall Summit on the state of the state and how to fix it.

Marc Victor, a criminal defense attorney from Arizona and a staunch liberty advocate, says there’s really no such thing as “the state”—“it’s just some people bossing other people around.”

Not everyone wants to fix things, he says; the bosses like the status quo. For example, aside from drug lords, DEA agents are the ones benefiting most from the “War on Drugs.”

Victor believes that democracy and freedom are incompatible, since “democracy is majority rule, and freedom is self-rule.” If you want to bring true freedom to America, he says, winning hearts and minds is the only way to reboot this country and create a free society.

Paul Rosenberg, adventure capitalist, Casey Research contributor, and editor of “A Free Man’s Take,” views America’s future similarly. He thinks the United States is in a state of entropy.

The bad news, says Rosenberg, is that there will be no revolution. The good news is that the peak of citizens’ obedience to the state is behind us, and people are getting fed up with the government’s shenanigans.

Real change is slow, he says, so we must work persistently to create a better world.

Stephen Moore, chief economist at the Heritage Foundation, says the problem is liberal economic policy: Red states in the US, he says, have blown away blue states in job creation since 1990. Texas alone accounts for the entire net growth of the US economy over the past five years.

As another proof point in favor of a free-market economy, Moore emphasizes that both Obama and Reagan took office during terrible economic times. While Obama has raised taxes and instituted Obamacare, Reagan cut taxes and regulation. As a result, the Reagan economic recovery was almost twice as robust as the Obama “recovery.”

One of the US’s biggest problems, says Moore, is that companies can’t reinvest profits because dividend, capital gains, and income taxes all have increased under Obama. Corporate taxes in the rest of the world have dramatically declined in the last 25 years, but in the US, they haven’t budged. The average corporate tax rate around the world is 24%—in the US, it’s 38%.

Overall, though, Moore is bullish on the US economy. American companies, he says, are the best-run in the world, if only the US government would adopt less economically destructive policies.

Doug Casey, chairman of Casey Research, legendary speculator, and best-selling financial author, isn’t so optimistic. First of all, he says, we’re in the Greater Depression right now, which began in 2008. He fears it’s too late to repair America, but says if anyone would attempt to do so, the following seven-step program would help:

• Allow the collapse of “zombie companies” (companies that are only being held up by government handouts and other cash infusions).

• Abolish all regulatory agencies.

• Abolish the Federal Reserve.

• Cut the size of the military by at least 90%.

• Sell all US government assets.

• Eliminate the income tax.

• Default on the national debt.

Of course, says Casey, that’s not going to happen, so individual investors shouldn’t hope for a political solution or waste their time and money trying to stop the inevitable collapse of the US economy. The only way to save yourself and your assets is to internationalize.

He recommends owning significant assets outside your home country: for example, by buying foreign real estate. You should also buy and store gold, “the only financial asset that’s not simultaneously someone else’s liability.”

Casey’s suggestions include going short bubbles that are about to burst (like Japanese bonds denominated in yen), selling expensive assets like collectible cars and expensive real estate in major cities, as well as looking toward places like Africa as contrarian investment opportunities.

Nick Giambruno, senior editor of International Man, agrees that internationalizing your wealth—and yourself—is the most prudent way to go for today’s high-net-worth investors. It ensures that “no single government can control your destiny,” and that you put your money, business, and yourself where they are treated best.

You should internationalize each of these six aspects of your life, says Giambruno: our assets; your citizenship; your income/business; your legal residency; your lifestyle residency; and your digital presence.

Regarding your assets, you can find better capitalized, more liquid banks abroad, and using international brokerage accounts can provide you access to new investment markets.

To hear all of Nick Giambruno’s detailed tips on how to go global, as well as every single presentation of the Summit, order your 26+-hour Summit Audio Collection now. It’s available in CD and/or MP3 format. Learn more here.

Gold: Time to Prepare for Big Gains?

By Casey Research

Years of a severe downturn in the gold market have left very few bulls to speak out in favor of the yellow metal. Here are some positive opinions on the future of the precious metal, from the recently concluded Casey Research Fall Summit.

David Tice, founder of the Prudent Bear Fund, believes we are heading for a “global currency reset” that will reduce the role of the dollar in global trade. Central banks, he says, don’t possess all the gold they claim to, and the unwinding of the paper gold market probably isn’t far down the road—it could even ignite the next major crisis.

The paper gold market (for example, exchange-traded funds like GLD) has massive leverage, with a ratio of 90:1 or 100:1 of paper claims on gold bullion. If only a small fraction of owners convert their paper to physical gold, says Tice, it will create a “no bid” price environment and cause the price of gold to explode.

He believes that once the paper gold market collapses, gold will be priced on the basis of supply/demand for the physical metal—which means it could be headed for $3,000 to $8,000 per ounce.

Ed Steer, editor of Casey Research’s popular e-letter Gold and Silver Daily, is equally bullish on gold… in the long term, because right now, he believes the gold market to be rigged: “Central banks intervene; that’s what they do.”

They control not only gold, but also silver, platinum, palladium, copper, and oil. He says there are two possible reasons that Germany hasn’t gotten its gold back that it had stored in the US—either the gold doesn’t exist or there’s so much paper written against it that it can’t be moved for collateral reasons.

While there’s not much an investor can do about gold manipulation, Steer believes that the manipulators’ schemes will blow up in their faces sooner than later.

Summit regular Rick Rule, chairman of Sprott US Holdings, isn’t worried about the bear market in gold.

“What matters is your response to the bear market,” he says. “If you have the wits, courage, knowledge, and cash to take advantage of them, bear markets are great.”

He’s keeping his eyes peeled on junior gold mining stocks, which, he says, are hugely attractive right now.

“Our market has fallen by 75% in three years. That means it’s 75% more attractive than in 2010, when we were all in love with it. Within a few years, we’ll look back on today’s low prices as the good old days.”

Louis James, chief investment strategist of Casey’s Metals & Mining division, also welcomes the opportunities to buy low that the current slump in gold prices provides.

He personally owns stock of three of the junior miners present in the Map Room at the Casey Fall Summit. All three of them have exceptionally high-grade projects that are delivering what they promised.

To get all of Louis James’ stock picks (and those of the other speakers), as well as every single presentation of the Summit, order your 26+-hour Summit Audio Collection now. It’s available in CD and/or MP3 format. Learn more here.

War, Peace, and Financial Fireworks

By Casey Research

Politics has long been a driver of international markets and fickle financial systems alike. Everything is connected. Here are some voices from the just-concluded Casey Research Fall Summit talking about cause, effect, and war.

James Rickards, senior managing director with Tangent Capital Partners and an audience favorite at investment conferences, says the Middle East, Russia, and China are all working against the US dollar and for gold.

America’s recently improved relationship with Iran is actually bad for the petrodollar, he claims, because the Saudis and the Iranians are bitter enemies. The Russians, for their part, aren’t sitting idly by while the US imposes sanctions on them—aside from Putin being able to freeze US assets in Russia, Rickards believes that Russian hackers may already have the ability to shut down the New York Stock Exchange.

China does want a strong dollar because it still holds over $1 trillion in dollar-denominated assets. But Beijing is aware that eventually the dollar will depreciate, so it’s buying gold to hedge against a decline in the value of the US currency. Current gold reserves are estimated to be between 3,000 and 4,000 tonnes of gold; the ultimate target may be 8,000 tonnes.

Rickards thinks that we are approaching a period of extreme volatility in the US markets and recommends allocating 10% of one’s portfolio to physical gold.

Bud Conrad, chief economist at Casey Research, also is a petrodollar bear. For the past 40 years, he says, the petrodollar has bestowed extraordinary privileges on Americans, but that era is now coming to an end.

Dozens of countries have already set up bilateral trade agreements that circumvent the US dollar. Dollars as a percentage of foreign reserves have declined from 55% in 1999 to 32% today—and could reach 18% by 2019, says Conrad. Ultimately, the petrodollar will fail, which will lead to a rise in sought-after commodities, especially gold.

Conrad thinks the greatest danger we face may be a combined financial and political collapse. Current geopolitical problems are even worse than economic problems, he says, and the trend is toward more, not less, war. Wars, on the other hand, often precipitate financial collapse.

Grant Williams, portfolio and strategy advisor for Vulpes Investment Management in Singapore and editor of the hugely popular newsletter Things That Make You Go Hmmm…, wholeheartedly agrees.

War and financial turmoil have always been inextricably linked, says Williams. Both occur in natural cycles, and one often causes the other. He believes that we’re in an extended period of economic peace because the Federal Reserve has used monetary policy “to abolish the bottom half of the business cycle.”

Although that may sound like a good thing, it is not. The business cycle, argues Williams, is inevitable and natural; we need it to cleanse the economy. But the Fed has leveraged to such unsustainable levels to “keep the peace” that the inevitable fallout will be that much worse.

He foresees serious wars to accompany the coming financial turmoil. Today’s geopolitical setup, he says, is similar to 1914’s. In 1914, France was a fading former giant (that’s Japan today); Britain was a waning superpower, no longer able to guarantee global security (that’s the US now); and Germany was an emerging industrial power huffing and puffing and making territorial claims (today, that’s China).

Rather than all-out war, Marin Katusa, Casey’s chief energy investment strategist, believes the new “Colder War” will be fought by economic means, specifically through domination of the energy markets.

While Europe is using less oil than it did over a decade ago, says Katusa, it’s depending more on Russia for its energy. North Sea oil and gas production is in decline, and Norway’s production has reached a plateau and is dropping. Russia, on the other hand, owns 40% of the world’s conventional oil and gas reserves.

The solution, Katusa says, is the “European Energy Renaissance.” As Putin tightens the thumbscrews on his energy trading partners, more and more EU countries are waking up to the fact that they will have to produce their own energy to gain independence from Russia. As the best ways to play this new paradigm, Katusa recommends three undervalued North American companies that are in the thick of the action.

To get Marin Katusa’s timely stock picks (and those of the other speakers), as well as every single presentation of the Summit and all bonus files the speakers used, order your 26+-hour Summit Audio Collection now. They’re available in CD and/or MP3 format. Learn more here.

Don’t Be a Freedom Wimp: Live from the Casey Research Summit in San Antonio

By Doug Hornig, Senior Editor

On Day Two of the Casey Research Summit in San Antonio, the emphasis was decidedly on the “deep state,” as Doug Casey termed it: what it is, what it’s doing, and how to thrive despite its ubiquitous reach.

The deep state begins with government, an institution Doug describes as intrinsically evil and destructive. That’s because it’s empowered by enforced coercion—one of only two ways in which humans interact with one another (the alternative being voluntary cooperation).

But the deep state is more. It’s not only the massive, prying, regulating apparatus of the federal government, but also the corporate structure that depends on government largess, and the lapdogs in the media and academic community that serve to perpetuate its message. All of these elements are held together with money and propaganda, and they combine to deny the vast majority of citizens true freedom.

Doug described America’s “top dogs”—a few thousand elites who all know each other. They went to the same schools, belong to the same clubs, socialize amongst themselves, and scratch each other’s backs. No conspiracy needed. They all know exactly what to do to maintain their position without being told. It’s a closed party, and as Doug said, “We ain’t invited.”

Below the top dogs are the running dogs: police, military, politicians, and upper-level government and corporate functionaries who grease the wheels for those at the top. And below them are all the rest. Most are little better than whipped dogs, in Doug’s view.

There’s one more group, comprised of those who aren’t members of the exclusive club but refuse to occupy either of the other categories. These are the ones who value freedom above all else.

Arizona defense attorney Marc Victor is one of them. The most passionate and exciting of speakers, Marc began by characterizing the state as an artificial construct solely intended to let some people boss other people around. He challenged his audience to work for a freer country by practicing freedom. To him, that means championing the right of each citizen to rule his own life—including to peacefully do or say that which you personally oppose. Freedom must be defended at the margins; otherwise it’s not freedom. No one is against free speech on noncontroversial subjects. But if the worst of speech is not protected, then the definition of what must be censored will continually expand until it can include virtually anything.

Go out on a limb, Marc counseled. “Don’t be a freedom wimp.”

Doug’s talk was actually titled “How Whipped Dogs Can Profit from the Coming Collapse of Civilization,” but at the end, he admitted it was a trick question, as the answer is, “They can’t.” Yet everyone could profit if Doug’s seven steps to reform the system somehow came to pass:

• Allow zombie corporations to fail

• Abolish all regulatory agencies

• Abolish the Federal Reserve

• Cut the size of military and associated praetorian agencies by 90%

• Sell all government assets

• Eliminate the income tax

• And finally—the only one Doug says will probably happen—default on the national debt.

When a structure is about to collapse, “it’s much wiser to do a controlled demolition” than to let it take everyone by surprise.

Doug does admit that such radical changes, however sorely needed, are unlikely to be made. But he, like many other speakers, is not without hope. “Science and saving” can yet save the day, he said. John Mauldin echoed that sentiment during “The Age of Transformation,” a fascinating, lightning-quick tour through cutting-edge technology. Given the geometric progression of innovation in medicine, manufacturing, communication, energy, and many other fields, the future is going to be brighter than we can even imagine.

Nick Giambruno of International Man used his time to lay out a series of practical suggestions on how to minimize your exposure to the predations of the deep state through internationalization of assets, citizenship, business, and physical and online presence.

And leave it to our own chief economist Bud Conrad to eloquently sum up why some continue to oppose the deep state rather than getting out of Dodge. Bud just put up photographs of his grandchildren.

[Note: This  was written before our Saturday night banquet and the eagerly anticipated keynote speech by gadfly and über-muckraker Alex Jones of Prison Planet. I will be covering his talk in my write-up of Day Three.]

If you’d like to hear these and all of the other great presentations given here at the Summit, be sure to order the complete audio collection and get every presentation on CD or in MP3 format. They’re still available at a significant discount, so don’t hesitate to take advantage of this great offer to receive all presentations and associated slides.

The Biggest Lesson from Microsoft’s Recent Battle with the US Government

By Nick Giambruno, Senior Editor, InternationalMan.com

A court ruling involving Microsoft’s offshore data storage offers an instructive lesson on the long reach of the US government—and what you can do to mitigate this political risk.

A federal judge recently agreed with the US government that Microsoft must turn over its customer data that it holds offshore if requested in a search warrant. Microsoft had refused because the digital content being requested physically was located on servers in Ireland.

Microsoft said in a statement that “a US prosecutor cannot obtain a US warrant to search someone’s home located in another country, just as another country’s prosecutor cannot obtain a court order in her home country to conduct a search in the United States.”

The judge disagreed. She ruled that it’s a matter of where the control of that data is being exercised, not of where the data is physically located.

This ruling is not at all surprising. It’s long been crystal clear that the US will aggressively claim jurisdiction if the situation in question has even the slightest, vaguest, or most indirect connection. Worse yet, as we’ve seen with the extraterritorial FATCA law, the US is not afraid to impose its own laws on foreign countries.

One of the favorite pretexts for a US connection is the use of the US dollar. The US government claims that just using the US dollar—which nearly every bank in the world does—gives it jurisdiction, even if there were no other connections to the US. It’s quite obviously a flimsy pretext, but it works.

Recently the US government fined (i.e., extorted) over $8 billion from BNP Paribas for doing business with countries it doesn’t like. The transactions were totally legal under EU and French law, but illegal under US law. The US successfully claimed jurisdiction because the transactions were denominated in US dollars—there was no other US connection.

This is not typical of how most governments conduct themselves. Not because they don’t want to, but because they couldn’t get away with it. The US, on the other hand—as the world’s sole financial and military superpower (for now at least)—can get away with it.

This of course translates into a uniquely acute amount of political risk for anyone who might fall under US jurisdiction somehow, especially American citizens. A prudent person will look to mitigate this risk through international diversification.

So let’s see what kinds of lessons this recent court ruling offers for those formulating their diversification strategies.

The Biggest Lesson

The most important lesson of the Microsoft case is that any connection to the US government —no matter how small—exposes you to big risks.

If there’s anything connected to the US, you can count on the US government using that vulnerability as a pressure point. Microsoft, being a US company with a huge US presence, is of course exposed to having its arms easily twisted by the US government—regardless if the data it stores is physically offshore.

Now let’s assume the company in question was a non-US company, with no US presence whatsoever (not incorporated in the US, no employees in the US, no servers or computer infrastructure in the US, no bank accounts in the US): then the US government would have a much more difficult time accessing the data and putting pressure on the company to comply with its demands.

It’s important to remember that even if a company or person is more immune to traditional pressures, there are plenty of unconventional ways the US can respond.

The US government could always resort to hacking, blackmail, or other acts of subterfuge to access foreign data that is seemingly out of its reach. This is where encryption comes in. We know from the Edward Snowden revelations that when properly executed, encryption works. For all practical purposes as things are today, strong and proper encryption places data beyond the reach of any government or anyone without the encryption keys.

Of course, there is no such thing as 100% protection, and there never will be. But using encryption in combination with a company that—unlike Microsoft—is 100% offshore is the best protection you can currently get for your digital assets.

Once you get the hang of it, encryption is actually easy to use. Be sure to check out the Easy Email Encryption guide; it’s free and located in the Guides and Resources section of the IM site.

How easily the US can access your offshore digital data will also come down to the politics and relationship between the US and the country in question. You can count on the UK, Canada, Australia, and others to easily roll over for anything the US wants. On the other hand, you can bet that a country with frosty relations with the US—like China or Russia—will toss most US requests in the garbage. This political arbitrage is what international diversification is all about.

The lessons of the Microsoft case extend to offshore banking.

It’s much better to do your offshore banking with a bank that has no branch in the US. For example, if you open an HSBC account in Hong Kong, the US government can simply pressure HSBC’s large presence in the US to get at your Hong Kong account—much like how the US government pressured Microsoft’s US presence to get at its data physically stored in Ireland.

Obtaining the Most Diversification Benefits

Most of us know about the benefits of holding uncorrelated assets in an investment portfolio to reduce overall risk. In a similar fashion, you can reduce your political risk—the risk that comes from governments. You do this by spreading various aspects of your life—banking, citizenship, residency, business, digital presence, and tax domicile—across politically uncorrelated countries to obtain the most diversification benefits. The optimal outcome is to totally eliminate your dependence on any one country.

This means you’ll want to diversify into countries that won’t necessarily roll over easily for other countries. This is of course just one consideration, and it needs to be balanced with other factors. For example, Russia isn’t going to be easily pressured by the US government. But that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to bank there.

Personally, I’m a fan of jurisdictions that are friendly with China—which helps insulate them from US pressure—but have a degree of independence and are competently run, like Hong Kong and Singapore.

Naturally, things can change quickly. New options emerge, while others disappear. This is why it’s so important to have the most up-to-date and accurate information possible. That’s where International Man comes in. Be sure to check out our Going Global publication, where we discuss the latest and best international diversification strategies in great, actionable detail.

We’re Ready to Profit in the Coming Correction—Are You?

By Laurynas Vegys, Research Analyst

Sometimes I see an important economic or geopolitical event in screaming headlines and think: “That’s bullish for gold.” Or: “That’s bad news for copper.” But then metals prices move in the opposite direction from the one I was expecting. Doug Casey always tells us not to worry about the short-term fluctuations, but it’s still frustrating, and I find myself wondering why the price moved the way it did.

As investors we’re all affected by surges and sell-offs in the investments that we own, so I want to understand. Take gold, for example. Oftentimes we find that it seems to tease us with a nice run-up, only to give a big chunk of the gains back the next week. And so it goes, up and down…

The truth is—and it really is this simple, but so obvious that people forget—that there are always rallies and corrections. The timing is rarely predictable, but big market swings within the longer-term megatrends we’re speculating on are normal in our sector.

Since 2001, the gold price had 20 surges of 12% or greater, including the one that kick-started 2014. Even with last year’s seemingly endless “devil’s decline,” we got one surge. If we were to lower the threshold to 8%, there’d be a dozen more and an average of three per year, including two this year.

Here at Casey Research, we actually look forward to corrections. Why? We know we’ll pay less for our purchases—they’re great for new subscribers who missed the ground-floor opportunities years ago.

This confidence, of course, is the product of decades of cumulative experience and due diligence. We’re as certain as any investor can ever be that today’s data and the facts of history back our speculations on the likely outcomes of government actions, including the future direction of the gold price.

When you keep your eye firmly on the ball of the major trends that guide us, you can see rallies and corrections for what they are: roller-coaster rides that give us opportunities to buy and take profits. This volatility is the engine of “buy low, sell high.” Understanding this empowers the contrarian psychology necessary to buy when prices on valuable assets tank, and to sell when they soar.

There have been plenty of opportunities to buy during the corrections in the current secular gold bull market. The following chart shows every correction of 6% or more since 2001.

As you can see, there have been 28 such corrections over the past 13 years—two per year, on average. Note that the corrections only outnumber surges because we used a lower threshold (6%). At the 12% threshold we used for surges, there wouldn’t be enough to show the somewhat periodic pattern we can see above. It’s also worth noting that our recent corrections fall well short of the sharp sell-off in the crash of 2008.

Of course, there are periods when the gold price is flat, but the point is that these kinds of surges and corrections are common.

Now the question becomes: what exactly drives these fluctuations (and the price of gold in general)?

In tackling this, we need to recognize the fact that not all “drivers” are created equal. Some transient events, such as military conflicts, political crises, quarterly GDP reports, etc., trigger short-lived upswings or downturns (like some of those illustrated in the charts above). Others relate to the underlying trends that determine the direction of prices long term. Hint: the latter are much more predictable and reliable. Major financial, economic, and political trends don’t occur in a vacuum, so when they seem to become apparent overnight, it’s the people watching the fundamentals who tend to be least surprised.

Here are some of the essential trends we are tracking…

The Demise of the US Dollar

Gold is priced around the world in United States dollars, so a stronger US dollar tends to push gold lower and a weaker US dollar usually drives gold higher. With the Fed’s money-printing machine (“quantitative easing”) having been left on full throttle for years, a weaker dollar ahead is a virtual certainty.

At the same time, the US dollar’s status as reserve currency of the world is being pushed ever closer to the brink by the likes of Russia and China. Both have been making moves that threaten to dethrone the already-precarious USD. In fact, a yuan-ruble swap facility that excludes the greenback as well as a joint ratings agency have already been set up between China and Russia.

The end of the USD’s reign as reserve currency of the world won’t end overnight, but the process has been set in motion. Its days are all but numbered.

The consequences are not favorable for the US and those living there, but they can be mitigated—or even turned into opportunities to profit—for those who see what’s coming. Specifically, this big-league trend is extremely bullish for real, tangible assets, especially gold.

Out-of-Control Government Debt and Deficits

Readers who’ve been with us for a while know that another major trend destined for some sort of cataclysmic endgame can be seen in government fiscal policy: profligate spending, debt crises, currency crises, and ultimately currency regime change. This covers more than the demise of the USD as reserve currency of the world (as mentioned above); it also covers a loss of viability of the euro, and hyperinflationary outcomes for smaller currencies around the world as well.

It’s worth noting that government debt was practically nonexistent, by modern standards, halfway through the 20th century. It has seen a dramatic increase with the expansion of government spending, worldwide.

The US government has never been as deep in debt as it is today, with the exception of the periods of World War II and its immediate aftermath, having recently surpassed a 100% debt-to-GDP ratio.

Such an unmanageable debt load has made deficits even worse. Interest payments on debt compound, so in time, interest rates will come to dominate government spending. Neither the dollar nor the economy can survive such a massive imbalance so something is bound to break long before the government gets to the point where interest gobbles up 80%+ of the budget.

Gold Flowing from West to East

The most powerful trend specifically in gold during the past few years has been the tidal shift in the flow of gold from West to East. China and India are the names of the game with the former having officially overtaken the latter as the world’s largest buyer of gold in 2013. Last year alone, China imported over 1,000 tonnes of gold through Hong Kong and mined some 430 tonnes more.

China hasn’t updated its government holdings of gold since it announced it had 1,054 tonnes in 2009, but it’s plain to see that by now there is far more gold than that, whether in central bank vaults or private hands. Just adding together the known sources, China should have over 4,000 tonnes of monetary gold, and that’s a very conservative estimate. That would put China in second place in the world rankings of official gold holdings, trailing only the United States. The Chinese government supports this accumulation of gold, so this can be seen as a step toward making the Chinese renminbi a world currency—which would have a lot more behind it than US T-bills.

India presents just as strong a bullish case, if only slightly tainted with Indian government’s relentless crusade to rein in the country’s current account deficit by maintaining the outrageously high (i.e., 10%) import duty on gold and silver. Of course, this just means more gold smuggling, which casts official Indian stats into question, as more and more of the industry moves into the black and grey markets. World Gold Council research estimates that 75% of Indian households would either continue or increase their gold buying in 2014. Even without gold-friendly policies in place, this figure is extremely bullish for gold and in line with the big picture we’re betting on.

So What?

Nobody can predict when the next rally will occur nor the depth of the next sell-off. I can promise you this: as an investor you’ll be much happier about those surges if you stick to buying during the corrections. But it has to be for the right reasons, i.e., buying when prices drop below reasonable (if not objective) valuation, and selling when they rise above it. Focusing on the above fundamental trends and not worrying about short-term triggers can help.

Profiting from these trends is what we dedicate ourselves to here. Under current market conditions, that means speculating on the best mining stocks that offer leverage to the price of gold.

Here’s what I suggest: test-drive the International Speculator for 3 months with a full money-back guarantee, and if it’s not everything you expected, just cancel for a prompt, courteous refund of every penny you paid. Click here to get started now.

Beware of Flashy Stock Repurchases When The Market Is on The Rise

By Andrey Dashkov

Retail giant Bed Bath & Beyond just announced plans to buy back another $2 billion in shares, which the company will start doing after it completes its current share repurchase program. You’ve seen it before: Press releases emphasize that buybacks return value to shareholders, analysts sometimes rely on repurchases to spot a stock to write up next, and management likes to tout their focus on shareholder returns. But what’s the real story? Why would a company buy its own shares?

There are but a few situations when returning cash to shareholders instead of paying dividends or investing in new projects is prudent:

• The company has largely exhausted investment opportunities that would generate a positive net present value (NPV);
• The stock is trading below its intrinsic value; or
• The tax on dividends is so high compared to the capital gains tax that it makes sense to boost the share price and let shareholders enjoy the extra return instead of receiving heavily taxed dividends.

When these situations happen we support repurchases. In the reality, however, managers often have their own reasons to buy back shares; let’s look at the more popular ones.

First, management’s compensation is often based on share price performance or earnings-based metrics like earnings per share (EPS), which buybacks are designed to boost.

Second, higher share price increases the value of a company’s options. Managers are often shareholders, too, but unlike you and me, they have direct access to the Treasury. When managers own a lot of their own company’s stock, they may have too much skin in the game. This may skew their preferences toward increasing the share price at the expense of long-term business growth.

Third, share buybacks became a standard (and often abused) signal to the market that: a) the company’s stock is undervalued, and b) that management takes care of the shareholders. Both of these statements may be correct in isolation, based on the company’s fundamentals and management practices. Nonetheless, a buyback should not convince you that either is true.

One additional reason is often overlooked. Many a CEO has been fired for an acquisition that did not work out. When the decision is made to dump the acquisition, it is accompanied by a write-off against earnings, sometimes worth billions of dollars. Wall Street armchair quarterbacks are quick to point out how much better off shareholders would have been if they had just paid out what they lost in dividends. Buying back company shares, with all the accompanied hoopla, is less likely to be a career-threatening move.

Linking the two subjects together makes for nice copy; however, keep it in perspective. For example, a technology company that realizes their product line is becoming obsolete will often make acquisitions to increase their product line market share, or move them into a new business with long-term potential. Buying back company stock, then having to go into the market and borrow at high interest rates, might be the exact wrong move. The key is making the right acquisitions for the company to continue to grow and pay dividends for the next generation.

In fact, managers have proven to be pretty bad stock pickers even when they have only one stock to pick. As my colleague Chris Wood showed in A Look at Stock Buybacks, managements have bought shares of their own companies at pretty bad times in the past. Moreover, the expectations of higher valuation based on higher EPS did not always materialize. Even though a lot of investors use P/E as their main gauge of value (which they shouldn’t), there is no convincing evidence that buybacks can support high valuation multiples in the long term.

Your Bottom Line

History has shown that the only value-creating buybacks were the ones carried out when stocks were deeply undervalued. In those instances, the repurchases helped companies outperform the market. But overall the optimism and confidence-inducing press releases that accompany buybacks should be taken with a huge grain of salt.

As a rule of thumb, beware of increased buybacks when the market is on the rise (everybody is an investment guru when everything is going up) or when management compensation is closely tied to the share price performance or earnings-based metrics. Companies with better corporate governance may fare better when it comes to managing conflicts of interest, but there is a significant vested interest there that investors should be aware of. Don’t mistake noise for a sign is all.

When it comes to returning value to shareholders, we appreciate companies that invest in long-term projects—or pay dividends. Despite the potential tax implications, the yield-strapped investors may be better served with a special dividend these days than with a promise of a better price in the future.

Learn more ways to cut through press rhetoric by signing up for our free weekly e-letter, Miller’s Money Weekly, where my colleagues and I share timely financial insight tailored for seniors and conservative investors alike. Sign up here, and we’ll send a complimentary copy straight to your inbox every Thursday.

Thomas Edison’s Dream Smashed

By Adam J. Crawford, Analyst

The incandescent light bulb was invented in the very early 1800s, but at that time was a device too crude and impractical for mass adoption. Over the next 80 years, at least 20 inventors contributed to its improvement, until, in 1880, Thomas Edison developed and patented a bulb that would last a miraculous 1,200 hours. Edison’s product was the first to offer the levels of functionality, durability, and affordability necessary for widespread commercial appeal. That’s why he gets credit for inventing the light bulb, even though he was decades late to the party.

Some 130 years after Edison’s patent was approved, the incandescent light bulb has basically the same features… a filament inside a glass bulb with a screw base. And for all those years, it’s been doing yeoman-like work providing clean, quality lighting (compared to the candles and oil lanterns of the 19^th century), in millions of homes and offices.

Today, however, the incandescent light bulb is on its way out… and a multibillion-dollar industry will be forever changed.

Done In by Inefficiency

The incandescent bulb, though very effective, is notoriously inefficient. To understand why, one need only understand how it produces light. The filament (or wire) inside a bulb is heated by an electric current until it becomes so hot it glows.

The problem: only about 10% of the energy used by an incandescent bulb is converted into light; the rest is dissipated as usually unwanted heat.

This is a problem, not just for the homes and businesses using these bulbs, but also upstream at the power plants that produce the required energy. In an era when producers are wondering how they’re going to keep up with the surging demand amidst rising fuel costs and concern about the environmental impact of energy production is running high, such inefficiencies are frowned on.

Governments, of course, have the ability to put muscle behind their frowns… and they’re doing just that. In 2013, it became illegal in the United States to manufacture or import 75- and 100-watt incandescent bulbs. 40- and 60-watt bulbs were added to the ban in January of this year. The US isn’t the only government actively limiting the use of incandescent bulbs. The European Union, Canada, Brazil, Australia, and even China are among many that have phase-out programs aimed at forcing users to convert to an alternative technology.

For household applications, that primarily means a switch to those twisty-shaped compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs), or the newest competition in town, light emitting diodes (LEDs).

A CFL’s spiral tube contains argon and mercury vapors, and they are far more efficient than the old Edison bulb. When an electrical current is passed through the vapors, invisible ultraviolet light is produced. The ultraviolet light is transformed into visible light when it strikes a fluorescent coating on the inside of the tube.. all at about one-fourth the electrical cost for an equivalent amount of light from an incandescent lamp.

LEDs, in contrast, don’t use commonplace materials. Rather, they’re made from somewhat exotic semiconductor materials, like indium and gallium nitride. When an electrical current is passed through these semiconductors, energy is released in the form of particles called photons—the most basic units of light in physics, i.e., light’s equivalent of individual electrons. In the process, little is lost to heat and the materials take minimal wear, making for another very efficient light source, and one that lasts far longer than its competitors.

Comparing the Alternatives

Right now, LED bulbs are relatively expensive to produce. That’s because a bulb is not just a bulb when it comes to LEDs—it can’t be made brighter by just putting in a thicker filament or tube. Instead, each bulb is a complex web of up to dozens of small diodes, each roughly the size of a pinhead, wired together and to a ballast that regulates the electricity flowing through them.

When compared head to head with incandescent and CFL light bulbs, LEDs come out the clear winner in operating costs. But even with millions of these bulbs now shipping to Home Depot, they still fall down on initial cost:

 

However, when you add up those advantages over that 25,000-hour lifetime, then the advantages start to become clear:

 

 

As you can see, to produce roughly the same lumens (a measure of the amount of visible light emitted by a source), both CFLs and LEDs are hands-down more economical than incandescent bulbs.

 

Of course, in a residential scenario where a bulb is run for maybe three hours a day, it would take about 23 years to realize that big a savings. But put them in place in a commercial or industrial setting like the hundreds of lights running 24 hours a day in the local Walmart, and the savings add up quickly.

Still, why are we so bullish on the prospects for LEDs if they barely edge out their CFL competitors over tens of thousands of hours?

The first difference is environmental. CFLs have the inherent disadvantage of containing mercury, a toxic metal that poses health and environmental risks. Break one of these bulbs and you have a biohazard on your hands. There’s a real cost to recycling these bulbs and containing the mess from those that are just tossed in the trash heap. It’s a cost that will certainly be shifted back to consumers of the bulbs if environmental legislation continues on its same path.

Further still, over its life, an LED bulb is already 25% more economical than a CFL. When compared to an incandescent bulb, either is a huge cost winner. But when it comes down to dollars and cents, the LED wins today. The only reason not go that route is the big upfront cost difference, which when buying tens of thousands of bulbs at a time (as many commercial companies do) can be a hard pill to swallow.

However, the cost of LEDs has been falling fast in recent years and will continue to do so. In 2011, a 60-watt equivalent LED bulb retailed for about $40. In 2012, the price fell below $20. Today, it’s less than $10.

As volumes increase and competition among manufacturers and retailers intensifies, prices will continue to fall. Some industry analysts see a $5 LED on the near horizon. We wouldn’t bet against it.

The price could go even lower if manufacturers can successfully implement a cost-reduction break-through. Specifically, LED devices are built on expensive aluminum oxide substrates. But manufacturers are working on ways to build on substrates made of silicon, which would substantially reduce defects and thus costs.

As prices drop, and if environmental law hits mercury-laced CFLs next, LED’s cost advantage will start to widen significantly.

Inflection Point

This all means that the LED’s time has arrived. According to IHS, a global market and economic research firm, unit shipments of LED lighting devices will grow at a compounded annual rate of 40% between now and 2020.

In 2011, the size of the global lighting market was about $96 billion, and LED devices accounted for about 12% of that amount. By 2020, McKinsey & Company projects, the size of the market will be $136 billion, of which 63% will be attributable to LEDs.

With the LED bulb, we have a trend that’s been in the making for several years… and it’s now ready to surge. How should an investor play it? Certainly not with a blindfold and a dartboard, or a whole sector buy like an ETF, because not all participants in this market will prosper.

Some will not be a pure enough play to benefit, or will be cannibalizing their own incandescent and CFL business… like GE and Phillips. Others will find themselves producing a commodity with ever-thinning margins… like Cree. And others still already have much of the anticipated growth priced into their shares.

However, we scanned the field and found a company that is well positioned to benefit from the growth of the LED market while, at the same time, actually improving its margins. We believe this company’s stock is undervalued. That’s why we’re recommending it in the next issue of BIG TECH. For access to this recommendation and many more, simply sign up for a risk-free trial of BIG TECH. If you decide to keep your subscription, it will only cost a mere $99—nothing compared to the profits just this one investment should bring. But, if for any reason you’re unsatisfied, simply cancel to receive a prompt, courteous, and complete refund of the entire subscription price. You have 3 full months to make up your mind.

Guest Post by Nick Giambruno from Doug Casey’s International Man

 

(Click here for part 1, where I discuss what capitals controls are, as well as why and how they are imposed.)

I think it’s a near inevitability that at some point the US will again enact official capital controls.

While the US doesn’t have explicit capital controls right now, I believe that the onerous reporting requirements of foreign financial assets backed up by truly draconian penalties, combined with measures like the burdensome FATCA law, amount to an indirect form of capital controls.

Rather than comply with FATCA, many if not most foreign banks simply show Americans the “unwelcome mat” rather than deal with the extra and costly regulations that come from having them as customers. This severely limits the options available, but does not shut the window completely.

This momentum is clearly not positive. It’s becoming more obvious that the US government is getting all its ducks in a row in case it ever wants to impose capital controls at some point in the future.

Capital controls are nothing new for the US. In 1933 under Executive Order 6102, FDR forced Americans to turn in their gold at the unfavorable “official” government price. That was a form of capital controls. So too was the subsequent period of prohibition of personal gold bullion ownership that lasted until 1974.

With no conceivable material slowdown (let alone reversal) in the growth of US government spending, debt, and currency creation, I believe it’s just a matter of time until a tipping point will be reached and capital controls will be presented as the solution.

It could all happen in an instant. All it would take would be the stroke of Obama’s pen with a new executive order.

The breakdown of the petrodollar system and the loss of the dollar’s role as the world’s premier reserve currency will probably be the triggering event.

The critical point here is that you must be prepared beforehand in order to effectively protect yourself.

What Could Happen if You’re Too Late

Capital controls are almost always a prelude to something bad. It could be a currency devaluation, a so-called “stability levy,” a bail-in, or something else. Whatever the government and mainstream media labels it, the end result will be the same: a theft of purchasing power.

The remainder that isn’t stolen is then trapped for future shearings.

That could make it hard or impossible to pay for medical care abroad—an increasingly necessary move for many, as the full destructive effects of Obamacare begin to be felt.

In addition to the direct damage, there is of course indirect damage. Capital controls permit an out-of-control government to better insulate itself from market forces that would otherwise help restrain its destructive policies. Capital controls also hurt businesses and pump further politically caused distortions into the economy. On the flip side, such distortions can create profitable speculative opportunities for astute crisis investors.

What You Can Do About It

You can preempt capital controls and protect yourself by internationalizing your savings. Moving your money offshore ensures that you won’t get penned for the shearing that always follows capital controls. You will have protected yourself from the “stability levy,” currency devaluation, or whatever form of wealth confiscation the government chooses to implement.

Doug Casey and I met a few people in Cyprus who shrewdly saw the writing on the wall and chose to move their money outside of the country before the crisis. They were thus spared from the confiscatory bail-in and free to use their money without worrying about the restrictive capital controls that forced everyone else to keep their money on the island.

Timing is the essential ingredient. I cannot emphasize enough how important it is to be prepared. A year or two early is always better than one day too late.

You will never know precisely when the day of reckoning will come… until it’s too late. And it will likely come as a surprise in order to ensure its effectiveness—like the sneak attack on Cypriot bank depositors did on that Saturday morning.

Nobody knows what the trigger will be for the US nor when it will be. We could wake up one morning to find out that the Russians and Chinese have decided to dump their Treasuries, causing a run on the dollar, and the reaction of the US government is to impose capital controls. There are many possibilities.

Even if capital controls are never imposed, you are no worse off for internationalizing your savings. In all likelihood, you’d be better off. You could sleep better at night knowing that you have insured your savings by diversifying your political risk. Also, many offshore banks are better capitalized and otherwise sounder than any bank you would find in your home country—at least if you live in the US or the EU.

But it’s not just offshore banks. Foreign real estate and storing your physical gold abroad are other options that will also protect you from capital controls and the wealth confiscation that always follows. These are the kinds of topics and actionable strategies that we cover in great detail in our Going Global publication. If you haven’t already, I’d recommend that you check it out while the window of opportunity is still open.

Until next time,

Nick Giambruno, Senior Editor
InternationalMan.com

A Crisis vs. THE Crisis: Keep Your Eye on the Ball

By Laurynas Vegys, Research Analyst

Today I want to talk about crises. Two of the most notable ones that have been in the public eye over the course of the past 6-8 months are obviously the conflicts in Ukraine and Syria. The two are very different, yet both seemed to cause rallies in the gold market.

I say “seemed” because, while there were days when the headlines from either country sure looked to kick gold up a notch, there were also relevant and alarming reports from Argentina and emerging markets like China during many of the same time periods. Nevertheless, looking at the impressive gains during these periods, one has to wonder if it actually takes a calamity for gold to soar.

If so, can the yellow metal still return to and beat its prior highs, absent a major political crisis or a full-blown military conflict? My answer: Who needs a new crisis when we live in an ongoing one every day?

More on this in a moment. Let’s first have a quick look at what happened in Ukraine and Syria as relates to the price of gold. Here’s a quick look at the timeline of some of the major events from the Ukrainian crisis, followed by the same for Syria.

 

 

There seems to be a fairly clear pattern in both of these charts. Gold seems to rise in the anticipation of a conflict; once the conflict gets going, or turns out not as bad as feared, however, it sells off.

We see, for example, that as the news broke that chemical weapons were being used in Syria and Obama was threatening to intervene, gold moved up. But when the US did not wade into the bloodshed and Putin proposed his diplomatic solution, gold slid into a protracted sell-off, ending up lower than where it began.

It’s impossible to say with any degree of certainty how much of gold’s recent rise was due to anticipation of the Ukraine/Crimea crisis, but there were certainly days when gold seemed to move sharply in response to news of escalation in the conflict. And again, after it became clear that the US and EU would do little more than condemn Russia’s actions with words, gold retreated. As of this writing, it’s down about $85 from its high a little over a month ago. (We think many investors underestimate the potential impact of tit-for-tat sanctions, but they are not wrong to breathe a sigh of relief that a war of bullets didn’t start between East and West.)

In sum, to the degree that global crisis headlines do impact the price of gold, the effects are short-lived. Unless they lead directly to consequences of long-term significance, these fluctuations may capture the attention of day traders, but are little more than distractions for serious gold investors betting on the fundamentals.

You have to keep your eye on the ball.

The REAL Crisis Brewing

Major financial, economic, or political trends—the kind we like to base our speculations upon—don’t normally appear as full-fledged disasters overnight. In fact, quite the opposite; they tend to lurk, linger, and brew in stealth mode until a boiling point is finally reached, and then they erupt into full-blown crises (to the surprise and detriment of the unprepared).

Fortunately, the signs are always there… for those with the courage and independence of mind to take heed.

So what are the signs telling us today—what’s the real ball we need to keep our eyes upon, if not the distracting swarm of potential black swans?

The big-league trend destined for some sort of major cataclysmic endgame that will impact everyone stems from government fiscal policy: profligate spending, leading to debt crisis, leading to currency crisis, leading to a currency regime change. And not in Timbuktu—we’re talking about the coming fall of the US dollar.

The first parts of this progression are already in place. Consider this long-term chart of US debt.

Notice that government debt was practically nonexistent halfway through the 20th century, but has seen a dramatic increase with the expansion of federal government spending.

Consider this astounding fact: The government has accumulated more debt during the Obama administration than it did from the time George Washington took office to Bill Clinton’s election in 1992. Total US government debt at the end of 2013 exceeded $16 trillion.

Let’s put that in perspective, since today’s dollars don’t buy what a nickel did a hundred years ago.

Except for the period of World War II and its immediate aftermath, never before has the US government been this deep in debt. Having recently surpassed the threshold of 100% debt to GDP, America has crossed into uncharted territory, getting in line with the likes of…

• Japan, “leading” the world with a 242% debt-to-GDP ratio
• Greece: 174%
• Italy: 133%
• Portugal: 125%
• Ireland: 117%

The projection in the chart above is based on the 9.4% average annual rate of debt-to-GDP growth since the US embarked on its current course in response to the crash of 2008. If the rate persists, the US will be deeper in debt relative to its GDP than Ireland next year, deeper than Portugal in 2016, Italy in 2017, Greece in 2019, and even Japan in 2023 (and the US does not have the advantage of decades of trade surpluses Japan had).

Granted, the politicians and bureaucrats say they will slow this runaway train, but we’re not talking about Fed tapering here. Congress will have to embrace the pain of living within its means. We’ll believe that when we see it.

But let’s take a more conservative, 10-year average growth rate (an arbitrary standard many analysts use): 5.3%. At this rate, the US will still be deeper in debt than Ireland and Portugal in 2017, Italy in 2019, Greece in 2024, and Japan in 2030.

Either way, this is still THE crisis of our times; all of the countries mentioned above are undergoing excruciating economic and social pain. It’s no stretch to imagine the kind of social and political turmoil that has resulted from the European debt crisis coming to Main Street USA, as American debt goes off the charts.

It’s also important to understand that the debt charted above excludes state and local debt, as well as the unfunded liabilities of social entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare.

This ever-growing mountain—volcano—of government debt is a long-term, systemic, and extremely-difficult-to-alter trend. Unlike the crises in Ukraine and Syria (at least, so far), it’s here to stay for the foreseeable future. While some investors have grown accustomed to this government-created phenomenon and no longer regard it as dangerous as outright military conflict, make no mistake—in the mid to long term, it’s just as dangerous to your wealth and standard of living.

Still think it can’t happen here? To fully understand how stealthily a crisis can sneak up on you, watch Casey Research’s eye-opening documentary, Meltdown America.

by Nick Giambruno

You’ve probably heard about the recent leaked conversations involving Turkey.

It was stunning to hear the highest-ranking Turks causally discussing how to provoke a false flag incident that would justify a large military intervention in Syria.

This is a big deal because Turkish troops in Syria opens the door to NATO troops in Syria, which drastically expands the conflict.

As someone who has spent a number of years living and working in the Middle East, and having been to Syria multiple times, I was encouraged by my colleagues at Casey Research to share my perspective on this.

In case you didn’t know, a false flag is an incident that is designed to deceive people into thinking it was actually carried out by someone else.

It’s like the scene in the movie Fast Times at Ridgemont High. There’s a character who plays on the high school football team and has a fancy sports car. Later, his little brother’s friend accidentally trashes this car. Terrified at how the big brother could respond, they come up with a clever plan to shift the blame on someone else. They make it look like a rival football team vandalized the car, decorating it in the rival team’s colors and slogans. The plan works—the big brother is tricked into thinking that a rival football team trashed his car instead of the little brother.

This is the essence of a false flag, and the same tactic is used by the world’s militaries and intelligence services to nefarious effect. Many believe the Reichstag fire incident that allowed Hitler to drastically expand his power was a false flag operation.

So, why would the Turks propose doing such a thing in Syria?

To answer that question, we need to sift through the complexities of the Syrian situation.

First, the Syrian rebels are divided into mostly Salafi Islamists and secularists, or what was once known as the Free Syrian Army. As things stand right now, the latter is essentially irrelevant and has little influence on the ground—a reality that the Obama administration stubbornly refuses to acknowledge. The Salafi Islamists are the real power of the opposition and can be divided into roughly three groups.

1. The Islamic Front: This is the so-called “moderate” or “mainstream” group and is supported mostly by Saudi Arabia, but also by Turkey and Qatar. It’s the largest group in terms of men, but not necessarily the most militarily effective.

2. The Nusra Front: This is the official Al Qaeda franchise in Syria. It’s more radical, known for beheadings and suicide attacks, and is supported by wealthy individuals in the Gulf and allegedly to some degree from Qatar. Al Nusra also widely coordinates its activities with the Islamic Front. This leads many to question whether there’s any meaningful distinction between the two groups, other than giving the latter a “mainstream” veneer to potential Western backers.

3. ISIL: This stands for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. These guys are so hardcore that even Al Qaeda disavowed them, as their brutal tactics have alienated many locals. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t powerful on the ground, though. In fact, they control a huge swath of territory that stretches from eastern Syria into the Iraqi city of Fallujah, which for all intents and purposes is a distinct yet unrecognized political entity controlled by these guys.

Now back to the Turkish situation.

Turkey owns a very small piece of territory inside of Syria that dates back to the Ottoman Empire. This small piece of land is the tomb of Suleyman Shah, a relative of one of the founding Ottomans. It’s guarded by 24 Turkish troops and is considered sovereign Turkish territory.

Having Turkish troops in this area is not controversial, as the Syrian government has long agreed to it.

The region where this tomb is located has totally fallen out of the Syrian government’s control for many months. And now, the hardcore ISIL group controls the surrounding area. It has threatened the Turkish soldiers and told them to leave. The Turks refused, and that’s why the Turkish government is getting skittish.

This is where the leaked tape comes in.

The conversation started out with the Turks talking about how they can protect this tomb from ISIL. This is not controversial. I don’t believe the Syrian government would care about the Turks intervening to protect the tomb, since this is an area where it has lost control anyways. Plus, I’d bet the Syrian government would be happy to see the Turks bogged down fighting ISIL militants who’d otherwise be fighting them.

However, that was not the end of the conversation. The really sinister part comes when the high-ranking Turks talk about how easy it would be to create a false flag incident involving the tomb, and how they could use that to justify a much wider military intervention inside Syria.

Such an incident would be a sort of foot in the door to further military activities inside Syria and would allow the Turks to help their favored rebel groups, which have seen serious setbacks lately.

That step would clearly cause them to go to war with the Syrian government and drastically expand the conflict. And once Turkey is involved inside Syria, that opens the door for NATO to be involved.

The Erdogan government has staked a huge amount of domestic political capital by supporting the Syrian rebels. They gambled that their favored rebel groups would quickly win and as a result, Turkey would have more geopolitical influence in a post-Assad Syria. It was a losing bet. Turkey’s favored rebels have seriously faltered, and a growing number of Turkish voters have become skeptical of their government’s intervention and the blowback it’s causing.

A false flag incident with the tomb would be a way for Erdogan to double down in a desperate attempt to turn things around in Syria. Whoever leaked this conversation clearly timed it to take the wind out the sails of such a strategy.

There are only a few people with the capability and motivation to do this. As an ally of the Syrian government, Russian intelligence is at the top of that list. They have leaked similarly shocking private conversations in Ukraine recently. Members of the Turkish military opposed to Erdogan could have also done it.

Instead of coming up with a classy way of saying “touché,” the Turkish government responded by throwing a childish fit, futilely trying to block YouTube and Twitter.

In this digital age, restricting Internet access, seizing and spying on digital data, and otherwise tampering with an individual’s digital presence have become new tools in the traditional toolbox of desperate governments.

Fortunately, mitigating this risk is relatively easy by diversifying your digital presence internationally. In our comprehensive Going Global publication, we have a comprehensive and actionable section on how to do just that. Whether it’s setting up an offshore email service or cloud file storage, to moving the components of your personal and business websites abroad, using secure encryption, or using a VPN to disguise which country you are accessing the Internet from to get past government blocks, Going Global covers it all.

While the actions of the Turkish government are pathetic and largely obsolete, that doesn’t mean other governments with much greater capabilities won’t try similar things. If we’ve learned anything over the past year, it’s that the NSA and the US government are very much in the business of trying to undermine your digital rights.

Internationalizing your digital presence is the solution. You will secure your privacy and ensure that no government can pull the plug on your digital life.